Thanks for these thoughts Sherman. I think this is possibly the best understanding of these texts.
God’s love - his commitment to do us good is unconditional - but our* experience of the blessings* of his love is conditional.
I agree with this.
I would normally understand “God’s love” and the “experience of God’s love” as slightly different concepts. I would have had no problem at all if Jesus had said “If you love me, you will experience more of the blessings of my love”. That would make sense to me. My problem is that the way it reads, he seems to be making his “love” conditional rather than “the blessings of his love” conditional.
You are understanding the term “love” in the bible to at times mean “the experience of the blessings of love” rather than just “love”. This may be the best way to read these texts.
Yes. I think Tom Talbott would would call this the “severity” of God’s love.
We know that God rejected Esau because he traded his birthright for a bowl of stew. For this reason he was rejected from the inheritance, yet, he was prosperous, received his brother jacob back graciously upon his return, fell upon his neck weeping as i recall, took him in, and protected him. I see no evidence that Esau resisted jacob’s inheritance rights, and Esau was made a great nation. As I see it, at least in this context and in Luke 14:26, the word hatred was used of comparative value, one over the other, and specifically in regard to the blessing of the inheritance. Altho Strong and Thayer , they both allow for it,
Strong 3404
miseó: to hate
Original Word: μισέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: miseó
Phonetic Spelling: (mis-eh’-o)
Short Definition: I hate, detest
Definition: I hate, detest, love less, esteem less.
from Thayer…
Not a few interpreters have attributed to μισεῖν(śə·nū·’āh) in Genesis 29:31(Rachel loved, Leah hated…my note)(cf. Genesis 29:30); Deuteronomy 21:15(the unloved of two wives); Matthew 6:24(of service divided between two masters); Luke 14:26(of loving mother and father less than Christ); Luke 16:13; (John 12:25); Romans 9:13, the signification to love less, to postpone in love or esteem, to slight, through oversight of the circumstance that ‘the Orientals, in accordance with their greater excitability, are accustomed both to feel and to profess love and hate where we Occidentals, with our cooler temperament, feel and express nothing more than interest in, or disregard and indifference to a thing’; Fritzsche, Commentary on Romans
HELPS Word studies from BIBLOS leans even stronger towards that interpretation…
3404 miséō – properly, to detest (on a comparative basis); hence, denounce; to love someone or something less than someone (something) else, i.e. to renounce one choice in favor of another.
Lk 14:26: “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate (3404 /miséō, ‘love less’ than the Lord) his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple” (NASU).
[Note the comparative meaning of 3404 (miséō) which centers in moral choice, elevating one value over another.]
To me that’s more than just a whimsy of witnesses- and I believe as a context of them all together is actually pretty weighty. Also, as Jesus tells us if we want to be perfect, we must love our enemies as does our Father in heaven(Mt 5:43-48), I find it hard to accept any interpretation that makes God personally hating anyone for any reason, tho He may hate their works and get angry and punish them, if he personally hates them, Jesus is confused, the word is undependable.
So when there are conflicting witnesses among scholars as to what a word means in a particular verse, I will go with the larger context of what Jesus taught every time to tip the balance in my understanding- making my choice accordingly.
“Hate” is certainly a poor translation for US, who have been indoctrinated to take the Bible is a literal document. It is not and never has been. It was written by ORIENTALS, and it’s very silly of us to insist that every word have the sort of precision expected of a mathematics text. As others here have said, “love less” would be more appropriate for OUR culture. The Bible wasn’t written to our culture, though. We need to look at the culture into which it WAS written and try to understand how THAT culture would have understood Jesus’ words. When we read the Bible, we are reading someone else’s mail. We will understand it much better if we take into account both the persons who wrote, and the persons to whom they wrote.
Eaglesway and Gabe
Yes, thank you, I agree that the word is used comparatively and therefor can be interpreted as ‘love less’. I should have included this in the definition I gave (my bad). This is not new to me.
What WAS new to me is an idea that the English word ‘hate’ had changed its meaning and, in past times, had meant ‘reject’. I just don’t want to repeat this interesting thought unless I can support it. I still see no support and I note that modern translations still use the English word ‘hate’ rather than ‘reject’ so I’ll just have to stick with ‘love less’ when talking with hardened Calvinists (which is generally seen by them as a weak point).
All the best and thanks once again.
I think “love” is the default position… but like anything, when “relationship” comes into it there is a strength present which is not known outside of that relationship.
As for the issue of “hate” equalling “reject/ion”… I have no knowledge of 16th century English, but I think a case can be made for it having biblical merit.
As I understand it… God’s dismissiveness towards Esau “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated” wasn’t in terms of a carte blanch rancid hatred emblematic of the likes of callous Calvinism, no. When God “hates Esau” it means God had no regard towards him – in relation to the outworking of the Divine redemptive plan. IOW, said “hatred” needs to be viewed in the greater context of Israel’s redemptive story. In Israel’s redemptive plan Esau was NOT called and NOT chosen, but was rejected as being God’s vessel through whom which the Messiah would come (Rom 9:11).
Similarly this then can be demonstrated accordingly in the story of David’s calling…
1Sam 16:6-7So it was, when they came, that he looked at Eliab and said, “Surely the LORD’s anointed is before Him!” But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have refused [rejected] him. For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
Thus refusal or rejection – or as some wrongly label “reprobation” – simply means: NOT chosen or called for the higher redemptive purpose or ministration. Simply put… scripturally speaking “rejection by God” was NEVER about post death retributive judgment via damnation or obliteration; it was simply NON-election to the greater redemptive purposes of God – nothing more and nothing less.
Then there is the case of Rachel and Leah and Jacob’s response to both…
Gen 29:30-31Then Jacob also went in to Rachel, and he also loved Rachel more than Leah. And he served with Laban still another seven years. When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren.
This word “unloved” literally means “hated”… Jacob rejected Leah because he loved Rachel more. As cold and as callous as Jacob was his rejection was NOT the rancid all-consuming wrathful burning hatred the likes of which Rom 9:13 is painted by some. It is worth noting that the root word μισέω (miseo) is used in both these texts, LXX (unloved) and GNT (hated).
Again such expressed hatred is likewise seen elsewhere in terms of the hyperbolic requirement to “hate” even ones very own family… Lk 14:26 – an embellished hatred relative to the commitment of Israel’s redemptive cause with NO literal intent of caustic abhorrence.
And like I read on Twitter from someone who is actually sympathetic and, I think, has many leanings towards Calvinism - "Election is about God choosing people for the world, not instead of it
I don’t think you could easily demonstrate as a doctrinal point, the morphology of hate in the “loves less” or comparative manner, but it was used frequently in old english literature and imo the English preponderance for using it that way came through the translation of the KJV as a common expression then that is no longer common now.
today, hate is not used in the miseo(comparative) sense any longer. back then it was common.
When you look up every occurrence of the the Greek word translated as “hate” (Strongs 3404), most occurrences seem to mean “hate” in the modern sense. Indeed I cannot find ANY occurrence which necessarily means “love less”.
We can go round and round the houses on this one as indeed on many issues within our attempts at coming to grips with the Word where most of us are looking at a translation of a translation of a translation and all the problems that therefore arise. I think this is just another case of the word bringing death but the Spirit bringing life. So in the end it might come back to my self experience of God colouring my perceptions. For myself if I find some conflict within the scope of the written word I tend to cut God and myself some slack and try see it all within the scope of the cross. it works for me anyway. Just as a postscript I would add that I do appreciate the thought and work which is put into these discussions.
What is this “translation of a translation of a translation”? The entire New Testament, with the possible exception of Matthew, was written in the Greek language. Greek is the language I look at in an attempt to get the meaning of the various words. Indeed, I frequently examine transcriptions of the earliest copies available such as papyrus 46 (middle of the second century) and papyrus papyrus 66 (middle of the second century).
I think is is an unproven theory that the whole New Testament was originally written in Greek. Some may have been Syriac, some Aramaic, and as Nick wrote, even if it was originally written in Greek(which I doubt but that’s another topic), it was almost wholly written by Hebrews (Paul, John, Peter, James) so the connection to OT language and thought of the Jews still illuminates the thoughts behind the words, they did not think like Plato and Aristotle, they thought like Messiah and the prophets- as Jews.
Also, I’m not really married to “love less”, it is a Strong’s and Thayer’s definition of a usage that does not mean hatred as in personal enmity…
But if we say that because in many instances miseo is used as plain ol’ hate, therefore God hated Esau- is that reasonable?
I don’t think so, because we have to consider the whole context of the word. God is love, who does He hate? To me, in addition to translation and specific usages, It is necessary to factor in the whole context of what is written about the divine nature and not only look at one debatable point of translation.
Did Jesus hate the people who crucified Him? he said, “If you have seen me you have seen the Father” , He said, “Forgive them father they don’t kno what they are doing.”
Imo, it is completely clear that God never “hated” Esau, as we understand the word to mean personal enmity, but hated him only in so far as he rejected him in favor of Jacob for the birthright. As a matter of fact, the context in Romans clearly demonstrates this because the issue there is sovereign choice, or election. Jacob was chosen and Esau rejected before either of them were born to have merited favor of disfavor.
Yes, that may be the case; no one knows. But even if that is the case, how does it help in any way to know it? None of the original manuscripts of the New Testament exists. The earliest extant manuscripts date from the middle of the second century, and they are all in Greek.
